Remember: there are studies criticizing those models in both directions. You could as easily cherry-pick the opposite kind of study, and say that it shows that the models are badly underestimating the warming that is going to happen. That's what I was talking about in my post.

There are thousands of studies going on, and propagandists can sift through those and cherry-pick whichever ones happen to say what they want to believe. Then they can deliver those, through the usual propaganda outlets, to the partisan masses. In this case, for example, you're citing to an infamous British tabloid. My guess is that you're not a daily reader of British newspapers, much less of a disreputable tabloid like the Daily Express, right? So, you didn't come across this study simply as part of reading through the whole paper. Instead, my guess is that you are a regular reader of a right-wing propaganda clearing house, like Daily Wire, a right-wing reddit, or ClimateDepot. Those clearing houses do the work of reading through hundreds of papers around the world, looking for anything that can be used to bolster the prejudices of American conservatives. Then they cherry-pick those stories, and serve them up, relying on their readers to then further disseminate that material through chat boards, social media, etc.

Am I right that this is how you encountered the story? Anyway, the point I'm making is that some of us operate differently. Rather than seizing on whatever individual studies happen to be saying something that we feel bolsters our argument, we instead try to get an honest view of what the overall state of the scientific understanding is. That comes not from consuming a selection of individual studies carefully curated for us by partisan outlets, but instead by looking at the big meta-analyses published by large teams of experts who have the time to review thousands of studies, and the training and background to weigh them meaningfully against each other. That's how I operate, and I'd urge you to do the same.

Whenever I see a climate study being promoted by a right-winger, I can be practically certain it came from one of just a tiny handful of researchers -- Curry being the leading suspect. I don't want to bash her too hard, because I think there's value in having contrarian scientists like her to kick the tires on the consensus views. The real problem here isn't with such scientists, who, whatever their motivations, are ultimately doing a service by challenging the ideas most other scientists have accepted. Rather, the problem is with the conservative propagandists and right-wing masses who lose track of the big picture -- mistaking a very tiny share of studies that happen to fit their prejudices for proof that the large share of studies they don't like are wrong. That's a deeply dishonest approach.

I think scientists shot themselves in the foot when they came up with the term "climate change" to describe catastrophic developments in the most benign manner possible. They should have coined something like "climate crisis" or "climate chaos." Choosing "climate change" is like calling the attack on Pearl Harbor "naval change."

The truth is we are screwed. It's much worse than we thought and while we know the cause we are unwilling.
We in our 50s will live without alarm, but the following generations are fucked.
Let's hope that the powers to be learn to write off, what cannot be saved without financial ruin.